Can ghosts be proven to exist or not?

[WhoWee]

If one priest reported seeing an angel, and another reported seeing a ghost...which report would be considered more creditable?

Likewise, if two aethiests made the same reports...which report would be considered more creditable?

My guess is one priest would be dismissed as promoting an agenda regarding the angel...and the ghost story would be debated. The aethiests would experience the opposite reaction.

I know an accountant who bought a log cabin outside of Nashville, on the edge of a famous Civil War battlefield. The cabin was reportedly owned by Andrew Jackson and was very well constructed...thick walls, dark and a little damp. There is an southern plantation type home alongside and the local women reportedly watched the Civil War battle from the second story balcony.

I visited the cabin, but wasn't eager to spend a night The accountant (and his family) absolutely swear there is a ghost of a woman that lives there. They claim she visits quite often. Apparently they aren't afraid and as far as I know they still live there.

Who knows?

 

[NWH]

One thing I would question would by why my conscious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions until observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

One thing I would question would by why my conscious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions until observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

Quantum Physics is the new Magic. In less than a century people will be chanting incantations and dancing around statues of Niels Bohr.

 

[c12_z]

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

It could be said that self-awareness is an actively beneficial trait: it tends to imbue an elevated sense of importance to yourself and your species, and, I'd say give any previously present curiosity a far greater potency than before. I'd think the effect on looking after oneself on the individual level would remain basically unaffected, but I'd think an overall positive effect on species survival could be considered possible. This elevated sense of importance of species is going to cause a greater working together to look after each other, combined with an increased to desire to gain explanations for why things are how they are.

This is speculative, of course, but I think it has a bit more to it than the idea that self-awareness is just there and hasn't had any noticeable impact on our behaviours and developments. To be frank, I find the idea that self-awareness has no impact at all on our development as species, in terms of reproduction, and all that, is tremendously hard to credit much.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

So, all our behaviours can be explained explained outwith self-awareness except for those which can't? I'd agree, but I'd figure it kinda screws your argument over (big time).

 

[sepfield]

hi all - ah been down this road a few times - some interesting points been raised - as tangents to the OP

so let's look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ?? - is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you can't , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

now if we base this on "probability " then the probability is that NEITHER of the above scenarios are true and in fact you would be right

BUT you CAN NOT prove that I ACTUALLY typed this post - as you where not here to witness the act of ME ( sepfield ) doing this - what you SEE is the result of SOMEONE posting this post BUT YOU CAN NOT prove it was me - you can reasonably ASSUME this to be the case - but IS this proof ??

so how do we PROVE that a person DID NOT see a ghost ( basing his report on the commonly ACCEPTED definition of such phenomena ) - WE CAN NOT we are not he /her - we can not honestly say that that particular person did not witness something - because we can not see through their eyes - and receive the stimulus that they perceive from THEIR brain , they COULD be the only person in the whole world WHO CAN see ghosts , SCIENCE can not dismiss this POSSIBILITY , for if it dismisses this POSSIBILITY ,however remote , then it is setting itself up as the ULTIMATE arbiter of ALL THINGS - vis PLAYING GOD ( but we won't get int a debate about his or her existence just yet )

so in my view PROOF is at BEST a common CONSENSIS that something is so - it however is not however the begin all and end all

so to sum up - we can NOT prove that ghosts ( whatever they may or may not be - but accepting the commonly accepted definition that they are NOT mortal/human etc , )DO NOT exist - and NEITHER can we prove they DO exist either !

we base a LOT of what we do or don't "believe " to be true on mass consensus - and also what others teach us or "proclaim " to be the truth because they have PhD, or some such , or they are alleged "experts " in the field

but ARE THEY ?? - after all most of what we are taught is only "perceived wisdom " - passed down by others who "perceive " it to be the truth or fact or whatever you want to call it

as the old song go's "it AIN'T necessarily so ! "

right you may attack sepfield as you see fit - i am well used to that

 

[zoobyshoe]

hi all - ah been down this road a few times...

...as you see fit - i am well used to that

Do you believe in ghosts?

 

[DaveC426913]

so let's look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ??

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

- is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you can't , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

 

[sepfield]

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models



You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".


oh please - don't start insulting me - ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,



Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups ! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives


It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.


i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law . ( unless you have a good lawyer )

that's life



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

oh gosh though i had won one then -and now you gone and spoilt it :rofl:

OK being a bit mean to you here - yes i do appreciate what you are saying and i have had these arguments many times - and in many ways you are right - BUT what i am saying to you is this , NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened - and even a couple of very skilled forensic scientists have been baffled

that's why we have a little thing called a verdict of "misadventure" in our legal system here in the UK - in layman's terms it means "despite all the experts - they don't know what killed them "

( i used to be in the fire and rescue game - just so's you know )

 

[junglebeast]

NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method ,

I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.

 

[sepfield]

Do you believe in ghosts?

naughty , that's like asking do i believe in god ??

to answer that i will say this :

i have never SEEN an actual fully materialised ghost - i have seen what i THINK was a partly materialised animal "ghost" ,phantom, shade , or whatever on a couple of occasions - basing this on the fact that my old cat has been deceased for some time , i do not have any other cats here , and i don't "think" i am loosing the plot ( this of course is always open to conjecture )

and i have seen other things that remain "inexplicable "

but do I "believe" in ghosts ?? - i don't have any evidence to suggest they DON'T EXIST ,in some form - and neither do i have any cast iron ,stand up in court evidence to say they do -so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost ?? it is easy to use the term loosely to describe what if you have studied the phenomena , of the "paranormal" what is a VERY broad spectrum of " possibilities "

let me state for the record here that i "believe " that 99% of what is "reported" as paranormal phenomena is little more than class 1A BS , driven by in part , motive , ( money , fame, etc ) and more so by the c**p put out on TV about the subject

BUT i do NOT dismiss ALL cases - as there are some that do still need answers - but they are as RARE as hens teeth ( imho)

 

[zoobyshoe]

i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened

What have you seen?

 

[sepfield]

I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.

selective quoting - tut tut .

the incident i mentioned had "scientists" with vast experience and the back up of the forensic service baffled - ( obviously i can't go into detail as that would not respect the deceased ) - but never the less it did happen - and is a matter of court record + numerous witnesses to the outcome of the incident all of whom are level headed professionals with in many cases years of experience in a variety of scenarios and disciplines

so you tell me given the "evidence " ( vis the crash killed 4 people ) and also the FACT that scientific analysis of the scene , the vehicle , the road surface and many other factors all said " this should NOT have been the outcome " - how come it did ??

there is no black and white - sometimes even the experts go away scratching their heads !

like wise i have attended accidents where people have survived against all logic and odds ( given the scenario )

guess one just has to put it down to the possibility that we ALL have a day to die - and it was just not theirs ??

some times - ( just occasionally ) - outcomes defy ALL logic - and we may have to accept that we JUST don't have an answer as to WHY

 

[zoobyshoe]

-so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

Is this a yes or a no? I am not asking if you can prove anything, just what you believe deep down.

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost??

What I am asking is whether you believe the apparitions people see are in any way externally stimulated by authentic non-corporeal entities of any description, as opposed to being hallucinations: erroneous triggering of sensory reactions from within the brain.

 

[sepfield]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

Yes, but what IS your opinion? As I said, I'm not asking for proof, just gut level belief. For example here's mine: on a gut level I believe in something you could call telepathy.

 

[DaveC426913]

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models

Sorry, you're missing my point. I'm not talking about ghosts here, I'm talking about what you are expecting from science. Science does not seek proof. What science seeks is a preponderance of evidence etc. etc.

I'm demonstrating that your premise is wrong - well, it's the OP's premise that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure we established satisfactorily in the course of this thread that proof of non-existence of something is unreasonable and faulty. You;ve come a little late to the table.

You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".

oh please - don't start insulting me

For the record, I worded it carefully to avoid saying you have never been exposed to it, I'd suspected you were aware of the scientific method. Indeed, that is what makes me wonder why you would say such ignorant things as you did. Do you wish to retract them?

- ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,

Why would you raise an argument that you don't hold? If you don't think this way and I don't think this way, why bring it up at all? You're trolling for a reaction.

Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups ! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives

Who assumed it was the correct answer? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I made no assumptions about what is correct.

...You are not discussing this with me, you are discussing it with a puppet that you've painted to look like me, and putting words in its mouth.

If you wish to refute something in a discussion, refute the things that are actually being said.

i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law . ( unless you have a good lawyer )

And bang. You've laid your hand on the table. (I should have just skipped down to here)

You're not a proponent of the scientific method, you're a faith believer.

Ohhh... That's why you're misrepresenting the scientific method and why you're hinting at examples of bad apple scientists who tarnish it's name. (It is only becoming apparent as I read your posts in reverse order.) You're against the scientific method. You seek "Right" versus "wrong".

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

This is all smoke-screen.
No one claims to be an expert (except the experts)
All of us might be wrong. All of us might be delusional.

You are fence-sitting.



Put it this way: Which one will you put your money on?

 

[sepfield]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now - as i have stated several times - i am giving a person opinion - i do not assume the arrogant position of saying that i KNOW one way or another -( and that is an honest answer) and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

one could argue that blind faith in the tenants of science is akin to blind faith in the word of religion - ( neither of which i subscribe to BTW )

and why Dave c are you taking this so personally ?? - i have no beef with you what so ever - so why are you trying to say that i am ??

i am mearly trying to point out that neither science nor "faith" as you put it have ALL the answers to everything - and that there are some things that remain "inexplicable " at this juncture - and also in a round about way - that PROOF , absolute and irrevocable proof is a difficult one to achieve ( but i think we agree on that )

and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over

no more than i expected though - so i will say no more on this - and then someone can accuse me of running away from the argument

like i said - been here before - strange sense of dejaview - creeping in

( i leave the stage open so those who wish can get the "final word in - and i guarantee there will be those who will wish to - go on for once prove me wrong )

 

[Dadface]

There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio than are etc.

 

[DaveC426913]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now

The patronizing tone you've used throughout (tut tut, etc.)
is equally as hostile, it's just passive aggressive. You're trying to convince yourself you're above being challenged.

Being able to predict your opponent's behaviour does not give you a superior edge. It's a technique that indicates you're uncomfortable argiung the issue at-hand (the utility of science in finding answers) and are more comfortable having a meta-discussion (a discussion about the discussion.) It is a form of straw man.

and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

I don't know, you're the one who believes there are "right" answers out there. The rest of us have only science and logic to guide us.

and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over

This is the obvious advantage of fence-sitting. No need to restate it.

The problem is you're argung merely academically, you don't hold the power of your convictions. Everytime one of your statements is challenged, you'll merely wag you finger and point out that you haven't taken a stand on the issue. As you have been doing.


If you're bowing out, then we can get back on track as to the discussion about proof of ghosts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's stay on topic. No more personal comments please.

 

[Count Iblis]

Proof that ghosts don't exist

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.

Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.

 

[junglebeast]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

Edit: Ivan, that's not how I interpreted the Count's post at all...I think he was just making a point that that ghosts would lose their interest if they were real. I don't think he was proposing that they are actually real.

 

[Count Iblis]

What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.

Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

 

[junglebeast]

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

What?

 

[zoobyshoe]

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.

 

[Anticitizen]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge. Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy, yet somehow reflect or even emit light... sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs... able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality. If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

 

[atyy]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

But by this definition ghosts can't exist - except in quantum field theory.

 

[junglebeast]

This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.

Unless there is an innate desire in all of us that makes us want to be somewhat unique...in which case, it can be used to explain all of the followers of those who are truly eccentric, because being a follower makes them (in their minds) one of the "few" who know...or part of the "in" group. It's also much easier to believe in something as a follower because then you're latching onto a pre-established idea and you can use the other followers to back up your own faith, allowing a completely eccentric idea to grow through a population exponentially. Sounds like a pretty typical social phenomenon...